The sins of multiculturalism – suffer the children.

My article from yesterday was cross-posted at XYZ magazine where I received a reply in the form of a comment from Matty’s Modern Life. He brings up multiple points that I am going to address in different articles. Today’s topic will be centered around the consequences of our actions.

The essential core of alt right thinking is an embrace of truth, no matter how unpleasant this may be on a personal level. Matty’s core area of expertise, and one that he talks about with considerable skill, is economics. As far as economics goes, Matty is right on target. He has seen through the Keynesian theory nonsense that has been propagated for the past 70 years. I give him a lot of credit for that, and I encourage you to check out his videos on the subject.

But every step along the red pill journey is fraught with danger. And there is no greater obstacle to breaking through to essential truths than when personal indiscretions and anecdotes get in your way.

“Race is culture.”

Not true at all, I’ve met plenty of people with two Asian parents who are as Australian as it gets.

There was another comment further down the piece from a different commenter in a similar vein.

I had a recent example last week working with a guy who looked Chinese, but if not for his appearance, I would never have known. Everything about him made me feel like I was talking with a fellow Aussie, even though he was born to Chinese parents up near Dubbo (running the Chinese restaurant out of a local RSL). Other personal examples come from my time in the military, where people of different races all follow that same army culture (for the most part).

This is the false argument that biological realism proponents encounter on a regular basis. Whenever I write an article it is guaranteed that someone will write something similar. It is the equivalent of the “Not all women are like that” line that one sees when pointing out general traits concerning female behavior.

When discussing biological realities one always has to revert to the mean, much like as we do when discussing economics. I myself also know a number of people of Asian descent who have assimilated exceedingly well into Australian society, but these exceptions merely prove the general rule. If they weren’t exceptions then people wouldn’t make such a big deal of them.

If these exceptions were in fact valid in a general sense then that would mean that by default I would not be able to walk down any street in inner city Sydney and observe a single sign written in some form of Asian language. But as we all know, the opposite of this is the actual reality.

A local council sign in Sydney.

In order to help people understand this point it can be instructive to turn the examples around. As native Australians it is all too easy to fall into the trap of assuming that foreigners that immigrate to Australia can easily become Australians because we ourselves are Australians – how hard can it be? Just discard your nationality and culture and let our Australian blanket settle comfortably around your shoulders.

Let’s reverse this. For whatever reason that you like, you have recently made a permanent move to China. You now have to become Chinese. More to the point, your kids have to become Chinese. The Chinese also need to accept you as Chinese. Do you think that you would submerge yourself in the Chinese culture and language or do you suspect that you might just end up at the local expat club where over gin and tonics you have a good bitch and moan about the slanty eyed devils?

I lived for ten years in a mountain village in Italy. All of my friends, associates, and colleagues were Italian. I learnt to speak fluent Italian. I had Italian girlfriends. But the thought never for once entered my mind that I was able to become Italian, let alone some bastard made up multicultural idiocy such as “Australian-Italian”. And if I were to have announced to my Italian friends that I was now Italian, they would have rightly assumed that I had lost my marbles.

Why is it that Italians or Chinese people would never accept lunacy such as “Australian-Italian” or “Australian-Chinese” but in Australia we submit to these falsehoods with barely a murmur? The other Anglo-Saxon countries around the world submit to them as well. It is a uniquely Anglo-Saxon disease. Could it stem from a deep sense of collective guilt at our own ancestors creating the greatest civilisation that the world has ever seen? In the face of what they did we seem inadequate. Nations need to compensate just like people. Perhaps the thinking goes that if we let in everyone and anyone and let them play with our toys then they will like us.

They also tend to marry white people and have mixed kids, what do we do with all the mixed children in the ethnostate, including my own mixed kid?

Bad choices and bad decisions occur on both a national and personal level. In times past the half caste or mulatto offspring of mixed race parents were rightly ostracized. Xavier Herbert’s outstanding novel Capricornia gives detailed insight of the burdens that such children had to endure over their lives. A high profile recent example of this is former AFL sportsman Adam Goodes. The product of an English father and an aboriginal mother, Goodes struggled to reconcile his lack of sense of place in his professional career, which led to many embarrassing confrontations with the public.

There are no consequence-free outcomes for bad decisions. A bad decision inherently implies that there will be unwelcome consequences. If there were not then by default it would cease to be a poor decision. Mixed race children are a glaring example of why Australia’s 40 year push for multiculturalism was a terrible idea. The very fact that Matty has to pose the question of what to do with them betrays this unpalatable truth. Our forefathers knew and understood this, which was why they were ostracized. Back in the day, if you worked for the British Colonial Office there was no greater sin than “going native”. The wonderful novels of Graham Greene abound with these hard lessons.

I am sure that Matty would rightly deplore the suggestion that national economic policy should be set based on an individual’s own poor economic decisions, but that is exactly what he is attempting to do when he writes about what to do about his own mixed race child. After 40 years of multiculturalism, unfettered immigration, and civic nationalism, there is no get out of jail free card.

The consequences of this terrible policy will have to be borne on the national and on the personal level. But that is only if we begin taking steps to rectify the situation. The consequences of leaving things as they are will be infinitely worse, and we are beginning to really see that happening now.

But your argument seems to imply that there cannot be any such thing as an authentic Australian. My forefather came to Oz from Scotland in the 1850’s. When he landed he was not an Australian, and could never become an Australian, and nor could his kids, or their descendants – isn’t that what you are saying?
Because if you’re not, then that immigrant from China who worked in Dubbo, and had kids here, can become Australian – and his kids definitely can, too. (They’ll be what we as kids used to called bananas – yellow on the outside, white inside).
Speaking personally, as an Aussie, I love to hear asian looking kids who speak with a real ocker accent. And I have no trouble at all calling them real Australians.

BTW I agree about your main point – the idiocy of saying people are Greek-Australian, or Indian-Australian, or whatever. Be Australian or be Greek – one or the other.
In fact anyone with dual citizenship should be barred from working in any sensitive government areas – eg DFAT, Defence, etc.

Both sides of my family were “transported” here from England pre-1800.

I have always regarded myself as an Australian, plain and simple, nothing else.

The term English(Anglo-Saxon)-Australian never entered my thought process, that is, up until the recent “push” (multi-culturalism) from the left in their attempt to destroy the Australia that I grew up in from within.

When you lived in Italy you remained an Australian, by virtue of your citizenship and the culture you were brought up in. But how on earth does that demonstrate that “race = culture”. It demonstrates perhaps a predisposition for most to identify with the culture we were raised in, but so what? Where is the connection to race and biological determinism?

You say we have to “divert to the average”, and not get hung up on exceptions. I agree. How then do you reconcile the average income of Singapore, or Hong Kong being far higher than the surrounding countries? Racially they are the same, culturally (thanks to the British influence) they are not.

Similar to most nativists on the left, you seem to coflate aspects of culture that are insignificant details (food, language, dress, etc), with important and fundamental values that determines the success of a given culture (respect for reason, individuality, hard work, etc). Both are reflections of culture, but one matters and one does not. An Italian or Asian or anyone else moving to Australia can retain their love for their native food, or talk to each other in their native language. There’s nothing wrong with that (in fact we often benefit), provided they adopt fundamental Western values. My observation is that most migrants from Asia these days adopt the important cultural values to a greater degree than your average native born.

You talk of “Anglo Saxon culture” as if it’s the product of some racially pure breeding program, that came from isolating the British Isles over thousands of years. This ignores the diverse racial profile of the British Empire built up over the centuries, and also how backward Britain was until about 1200 compared to say China or the Middle East. Even prior to the 1700’s when the British Empire expanded across the globe, the British Isles had been subject to migration/invasion from Rome, the Celts, Germany, Scandinavia and France to name a few.

All great civilizations (Greece, Rome, Britain) had diverse racial makeups. They thrived because they opened themselves up to free trade, a corollary of which was the free movement of people. Even lesser examples like the Venetian Republic may not have had the racial diversity, but they only survived, and in fact thrived because they encouraged the free movement of goods and people between far flung regions. Rationality thrives, and progress occurs when you’re being challenged by alternative ways of doing or seeing things – not by isolating yourself, resting on your laurels, and claiming unearned credit for your skin colour. Rome in particular was very racially diverse, and could only sustain a territory that size by being relatively inclusive for the times – certainly not by building walls, shutting people out, and remaining racially “pure”.

Contrary to what both the left and alt-right claim, I have never ever seen one thread of evidence to support the assertion that “race = culture”.

Mark, you are confusing empires with the Imperial centre. Anglo Saxons (Britain) built the greatest empire in history, and it did indeed borrow some words and aspects of the cultures it dominated, but at no point did they fall for the relativist line that ‘all cultures and people are equal’, and at no point did it do more than train and educate the ruling class of the subject peoples of the empire in London, before sending them home to help administer. The natives did not move to the UK, the British moved administrators, teachers, missionaries, soldiers etc to those lands, and in the case of the settler societies, it sent its people. Those people become Australians/New Zealanders/Canadians/Americans etc.

The point being, that Anglo Saxons developed a society unique to them alone in England, which later on with Britain as an empire, and British settler societies, succeeded in a way that others did not, because it was a product of Anglo-Saxon peoples. Not French or Spanish, who produced different outcomes at home and abroad. The very words you used “respect for reason, individuality, hard work, etc” are synonymous with the English people. As are private property rights, the use of force to defend such rights, the establishment of representative government and so on. It is no coincidence that the longest, oldest constitutional nations on earth are almost all Anglo-Saxon nations (UK,USA,Canada,Australia,New Zealand). Note, that’s not because we have laws written down on paper or a ‘culture’ of freedom. The French have that too, but what republic are they up to now? Its because the people of those nations understand those concepts. They have lived, breathed and defended them for centuries. Its no coincidence that as our demographics change, so to does our ability to hold onto those precepts.

Yes, culture plays a role. British economic, legal and political structures gave high IQ people’s like the Chinese in HK the ability to race ahead of their fellow Chinese, but while they maintain some aspects of this culture (primarily financial), Chinese biological programming has, and will continue to, resume in the absence of British governance. Individual liberty is an English concept. It means little to any other people’s (especially non Europeans). It will go extinct with the dinosaurs once China is the hegemon. HK included. You cant teach that. Its programmed into Anglo-Saxons.

You also underestimate that the almost millennia period between the Norman conquest and the 20th century saw virtually no migration to the British Isles. The great exception being the Huguenots. 50,000 French were given refuge in England. As Douglas Murray notes, this event reverberated in England for centuries, such was the scale of the migration. Yet in comparison to the radical shifts we saw beginning last century, it was barely a drop in the bucket.

Its disingenuous to claim that Britain is a nation of migrants. Alfred the Great forged an English identity way back in the 9th century, and that legacy endured the Vikings and Norman invasions.

You make a similar error regarding the Roman empire. The Franks, Goths, Vandals etc did not become Roman. They were in many cases invited in at the expense of Romans, taking their lands in exchange for military service. They replaced Romans.

Where I believe you are confusing things is in the timing. Right now, Europeans are still the dominant race of their formerly homogeneous lands. We therefore still on the surface are ‘Australian’s’ and the French are still ‘French’. Officially. For now. Yet once North Africans make up a larger percentage of France than ethnic Frenchmen, do you still think that nation will be producing champagne and be the centre of art for western civilisation?

When the legions were still marching and conquering, having the help of various tribal allies to cover up for their over extension was all good. Nobody was the wiser as to the chinks in their armour. Once it became wholesale knowledge that the legions couldn’t hold their frontiers without the help of these competing tribes, the game was up.

Your response is largely attacking a straw man. I did not argue for unlimited immigration from a hostile culture into a welfare state (that’s a separate discussion). I do not dispute British culture was exported to the rest of the world. Most importantly I do not argue for cultural relativism – that all cultures are equal. In fact I’m pretty confident I understand the superiority of Western culture far better than Adam, because I understand it’s superiority came from the values adopted and systems put in place by its founders. Values and actions which come down to free choice, not the accident of birth which is our skin colour.

The idea that our superior culture comes from our DNA seems absurd on the face of it.
To state one obvious contradiction to this theory, why then was Britain so primitve and backwards until at least the Roman invasions? Surely even you have to acknowledge it came down to free will and choice. A choice to adopt certain values and put in place certain systems that encouraged successful action. Are you really arguing that only people with white skin have the ability (or will ever have the ability) to make that choice? If so where’s the evidence?

Western civilisation cannot survive unless cultural relativism is rejected, that much we probably agree on. But it also will not survive the assumption that a superior culture is something we automatically inherit by virtue of our race. A superior culture doesn’t come automatically, it has to be earned. The flip side is that a superior culture can be adopted by any thinking human, whatever their race.

Mark, you possess an astounding ability to continually miss the point. This is not a virtue.

Nebia, the reason that in the past being an Anglo-Saxon Australian never entered your thought process was because the vast majority of people were Anglo-Saxon in this country. If you are part of a racially homogenous nation, such as Japan, then you identify by your nationality. We are only beginning now to identify as white Australians because being “Australian” does not resonate as an identity anymore. The Dutch still have this belief that Australians look like me but I take no pleasure in informing them that this is no longer the case.

50 years ago when Australia hosted the Olympic games there was not any doubt in the world as to what an Australian looked like. What does an Australian look like now?

If you want to have an Australian identity and not a racial one then Australia needs to go back to being 90% white. That is the only way to push back. Deport them all.

Adam – If there is a valid point in there I’ve missed, it’s because I can’t get past your ridiculous assertion at the start that “race is culture”. This implies a successful culture is a matter of DNA rather than choice and effort. It’s unfair not only to those who have successfully rebelled against their backward native culture (eg: Hirsi Ali), but gives unearned credit to white losers who have no inkling of what Western Civilization even is. For someone who supposedly values Western Civilisation, it’s a very uncivilized and primitive position to adopt. Don’t be surprised if your comments section becomes overrun by white supremacist goons unthinkingly cheering you on, and you lose thinking commenters like myself.

On many other topics you acknowledge that achievement comes from free will – choices and actions, and not determined by our DNA. Why you don’t apply the same principle to this topic is beyond me. I can only assume you’re the metaphorical Darth Vader, who’s hatred for the Left has become all consuming and driven you to the dark side, robbing you of any perspective or rationality on this issue.

of course race is culture . .where tf do you think it comes from, the air? the water? there is a tiny island in the Outer Hebrides off Scotland called St.Kilda that for centuries had no contact with the world, but its few hundred inhabitants still managed to convene a ‘parliament’ every Monday morning . .the people were of Viking stock . .we get a lot of our higher civic functions from the Vikings, so did they . . .from their DNA

A Chinaman in Australia or Texas will think he’s Australian or Texan if he’s the only Chinaman around. If it’s him and his family they’ll try to assimilate. When the guy doesn’t have his own tribe around him, he’s got to join yours.

Bring in a thousand others and suddenly they hyphenate and you’ve got a serious problem.

Zero immigrants is fine by me, but a few here and there are no big deal if they’re civilized. Of course, that’s why the pozzers won’t let us keep it to just a few, or just the civilized ones.